Skipper v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council and Governors of Crossley Heath School: CA 15 Mar 2006

The claimant sought damages alleging that the defendants had failed her by not identifying and ameliorating her dyslexia whilst she was a student. The judge had found that she might establish negligence but that she had not established any loss. She had not established that she would have followed the professional career she asserted.
Held: ‘as a matter of principle general damages can be awarded for the consequences for a failure to take appropriate steps to ameliorate dyslexia, including frustration, loss of self confidence and loss of self esteem’ and ‘if it can be shown that a claimant’s disability had a real effect on his or her ability to cope with school and work, or has otherwise interfered significantly with his enjoyment of life, that will be a loss of amenity which can properly sound in damages. ‘ The court allowed the appeal since there was an arguable case for damages, but expressed real concern at the relative costs and that proving a loss might remain difficult.

[2006] EWCA Civ 238
England and Wales
CitedE (A Minor) v Dorset County Council CA 1995
It is generally unwise to give summary judgment in cases where the relevant law is uncertain or in a state of development: ‘This must mean that where the legal viability of a cause of action is unclear (perhaps because the law is in a state of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Professional Negligence, Education, Damages

Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.239140